Wilson Audio Specialties Alexandria XLF loudspeaker

The Wilson Audio Specialties Alexandra XLF costs $200,000/pair. So does a Ferrari. Perhaps if Wilson Audio Specialties sold as many pairs of XLFs as Ferrari sells cars, the price might drop. For now, $200,000 is what you pay.

Can a loudspeaker possibly be worth that much? Add $10,000 for speaker cables, and that's what I paid for my first home in 1992. Today, the average American home costs around $272,000, which is likely less than the cost of an audio system built around a pair of Alexandra XLFs.

Think no one spends that kind of money on a music system? Don't kid yourself. Many people can afford it, and many spend itthough not as many as should. We need to educate those people! Anyone want to fly me to Monaco on a goodwill mission?

The real question is this: Is the XLF's sound worth that expense?

I know a pair of speakers can be worth at least $158,000: I've heard the XLF's predecessor, the Alexandria X-2 Series 2, in a few systems over the past few years, including the one in the living room of recording engineer Roy Halee, driven by a pair of big Boulder amplifiers. I sat there for an enjoyable afternoon, mesmerized by, among other things, the X-2s' exceptional transient and microdynamic delicacy, massive macrodynamic scale, bass precision, and top-to-bottom coherence. It's a sound that demands respect: This speaker performs at a level only a few others can manage.

I also know that a pair of speakers can be worth $65,000: At home, I listen contentedly and with great appreciation to a pair of Wilson MAXX 3s. Not an evening of listening goes by that I don't remind myself how lucky I was to be able to buy these speakers, which are part of a system I never imagined I'd be able to own.

Well, actually, I did imagine it years ago, as I lived vicariously through the writings of J. Gordon Holt, Harry Pearson, and others, when the total cost of my audio system was only a few thousand dollars: Denon direct-drive turntable with AC motor, Lustre GST-1 tonearm, Dynavector Ruby cartridge, Marcoff PPA-1 head amp, Hafler DH101 preamplifier and DH200 power-amp kits, and Spica TC-50 speakers. And back then, I felt lucky to own that system.

Description
While the Alexandria XLF superficially resembles its predecessor, the Alexandria X-2 Series 2 ($158,000), the XLF does not replace the X-2, which will continue to be available. The XLF is larger, and at 655 lbs is 50 lbs heavier, than the already massive X-2; it also incorporates numerous changes and refinements.

The volume of the XLF's bass enclosure is 14% greater than the X-2's. The cabinet walls are thicker, and inside, a newly developed bracing geometry better deals with the XLF's greater production of low-frequency energy. The bass drive-units, though, are the same as in the X-2: 13" and 15" woofers made by Focal. The cones are of Focal's proprietary W material: two layers of woven glass tissue separated by and bonded to a core of aeronautical foam, the mass of which can be precisely varied to match the needs of the particular driver design. The W material is ultra-stiff, ultra-lightweight, and said to be extremely low in coloration. It's also 10 times more expensive to make than the high-quality paper Focal uses for its less expensive subwoofer cones, including the ones used in the MAXX 3. (A few years ago, at Focal's facility in St. Etienne, France, I watched W cones being made by developmentally challenged people, who had been taught to operate the machines as part of a government program to create meaningful employment for them.)

The Alexandria XLF features Wilson's unique, room-optimizing, Cross Load Firing (XLF) porting system. With this latest refinement in owner-designer Dave Wilson's attempt to produce speakers that can be optimized to work well in a wide variety of rooms, you can easily switch between front and rear porting by unscrewing a few bolts and swapping the locations of some parts.

The Alexandria series' rigid "wings" that bracket the midrange and tweeter modules, made of cross-braced sections of Wilson's X material (a proprietary phenolic composite), has been substantially strengthened and thickened. Wilson's composite S material was first used in the Sasha W/P, which replaced the WATT/Puppy. Here, in combination with the X material, it replaces the M4 material used in the Alexandria X-2's midrange baffle, and is claimed to audibly and measurably reduce midrange noise and coloration. Wilson's strategy has long been one of relatively large midrange drivers that cover almost the entire midrange without being interrupted by the crossover. However, to avoid high-frequency beaming, this necessitates the two 7" carbon-fiber/paper-cone midrange units handing off to the tweeter at the unusually low frequency of about 1kHz. This is why one of the most significant upgrades in the XLF is its new Convergent Synergy silk-dome tweeter, made for Wilson by Scan-Speak. This replaces the inverted titanium dome used in the X-2 and is built to Wilson's specifications by Focal, variations of which have long been used throughout much of the Wilson line.

While the new tweeter superficially resembles versions used by other manufacturers, Wilson's specific requirements took three years of development to achieve the high power handling, low distortion, and wide bandwidth required by Wilson's crossover strategyall of which the inverted titanium dome had successfully achieved. The new silk dome meets the goals of low distortion and high power handling while surpassing the titanium dome's overall linearity and HF extension. Another silk dome, a variant of the Convergent Synergy, acts as a supertweeter and fires to the rear from the top of the upper midrange module.

Living like the 99%, listening like the 1%
Had Wilson Audio Specialties been looking for a space in which to demonstrate the efficacy of Dave Wilson's group-delay technology, in particular the Aspherical Group Delay adjustability (see below) implemented in the Alexandria X-2 and the new Alexandria XLF, they couldn't have found one more challenging than my listening room, which measures only 15' by 21' by 8'.

The room itself is not the challenge. In fact, its acoustics have been measured and found to be reasonably linear, and particularly excellent in terms of decay, which one acoustician described as "ideal," thanks to my walls of LPs. Even when not being played, vinyl sounds good. Nor was the challenge one of shoehorning into a ground-floor room two speakers, each one 5' 10" tall, 19" wide, 28" deep, and weighing 655 lbs. Like all of Wilson's large speakers, the XLFs ship in pieces, the massive woofer cabinets rolling out of their crates on casters. The total shipping weight per pair is just under a ton: 1910 lbs. And let's leave aside for the moment the not-insignificant problem of taming the combined output of two enormous woofer boxes placed just a few feet from the room's corners.

The seemingly insoluble dilemma was how to create a coherent soundfield from two tall stacks of drivers sitting just 94" from the listening position. And yet, as unlikely as it seemed, particularly to me, Wilson's Peter McGrath was convinced that the XLFs would, in my room, work as well as if not better than the MAXX 3s. But then, I'd been convinced the MAXX 2s and 3s wouldn't work here, and they didthe 3s better than the 2s, because of the 3s' increased driver adjustability.

Setup
An audiophile friend helped me unbox the Alexandria XLFs' many crates, remarking as we went on Wilson's fanatical attention to detail and the precise fit'n'finish of all partseven the ones owners are unlikely to ever see once the speaker is assembled.

Then I played them a format that doesn't MEASURE as well as CDs... a format they'd not really paid much attention to because IT DOESN'T MEASURE AS WELL and guess what?

When they heard what proper vinyl playback sounds like they almost S...T.

Measuring a complex speaker like the XLFs is NOT EASY. And clearly interpreting a complex set of measurements and attempting to sort of what that might sound like is clearly beyond your abilities. But JohnnyR: blather on.....

I understand you bought the review pair. Before the jealous rants begin, let me say that anyone who can turn a hobby into an occupation that allows him to acquire such equipment deserves a pat on the back.

I understand you bought the review pair. Before the jealous rants begin, let me say that anyone who can turn a hobby into an occupation that allows him to acquire such equipment deserves a pat on the back.

Michael cashed in some of his retirement savings in order to be able to purchase the Wilson XLFs.

JohnnyR wrote:

Golly look at that frequency response. $200,000 gets you that.

So what did you think about the Alexandria XLF's sound when you heard them? (I assume you did hear them.)

JohnnyR said he had nothing else to say and you come along and taunt him? Classy as always. I also agree that for $200,000 I would expect a much better frequency response. I suppose Floyd Toole, who you like to quote so often would also agree with JohnnyR and myself on that matter.

Michael spent his retirement savings on these way over priced monkey coffins? I find the design hideous and as predicted, yet another Stereophile stupid review about a product maybe, maybe I say, 1% of your readership could afford.Keep up the good work Mr Atkinson.

Really George Holland, you are "classy"? "Monkey coffins?" You are beneath monkey level. What's heard and what's measured, particularly with a complex design like this don't always correlate.

I've heard some speaker that measure "flat" that sound like CRAP and vice-versa. As the talented speaker designer Joachim Gerhard once said to me: "Today, it's relatively easy to produce a speaker that has flat on-axis response but that doesn't mean it will sound very good."

Even the most vociferous Wilson-haters like you and folks who don't like moving coil speaker visit here and come away impressed.

With a comment like yours, I'm not constrained to be "classy": you are an idiot.

Well, actually I sleep comfortably on our king sized bed containing a Kluft mattress. It's stupidly expensive and unbelievably comfortable but I bet it doesn't measure all that well.

We once owned simultaneously 4 giant Bernese Mountain Dogs. That's her thing. Marriage is a give and take. We had giant black fur balls flying around the house like tumbleweeds. Not to mention occasional vomit and doody. Dogs have accidents.

Currently we have two cats, a gecko and a Cardigan Welsh Corgi. We had two, but our older one that my wife showed died suddenly at 6 years of age. It was tragic.

His name was WILSON. I guess he didn't "measure up."

He was a swell dog. My wife named him Wilson but no doubt some lunatics will think Wilson Audio Specialties considered this advertising and subsidized the purchase of the speakers.

My listening room is the lower level of our home.... I can do as I wish down here and upstairs I live with her passion: animals. She's deep into it. That equals a good balance...

Just to bring some clarity to the subject, the drivers used in these boxes are (or variants of):

ScanSpeak Revelator D2904 - $312 from Madisound
Focal Audiom 13WX - $930 from Zalytron
Focal Audiom 15WX - $1,450 from Zalytron
Midranges - can't get a bead on the manufacturer, but I sincerely doubt they cost more than the woofers so lets spec them at $500 each (very few mids cost more than that).

That brings the grand total (for over-the-counter prices) to about $7,500 for the drivers in these behemoths. I imagine Wilson pays less so, even if they pay $1,000 for each mid (which I seriously doubt), the cost for the drivers is topping out at less than $10k. That's 5% of the cost of the speakers.

The crossover? I know Wilson uses crazy, complex networks, but I doubt that cost is more than $10k for the parts.

The cabs? I'm not a craftsman, but I think you could get something comparable from North Creek Music Systems for $20k or so.

So, I've budgeted $40,000 for speakers like the XLF. What accounts for the balance of $160,000? This isn't like a Bugatti Veyron where they're pushing technology way past what was previously achievable.

I propose something else that is just as audacious:
• Two Paradigm SUB 1 subwoofers - $10,000
• Mids and tweeters by any great supplier - in this case, some of the most expensive on the market - diamond tweeters and ceramic mids by Accuton - $3,600 for 4 mids and $5,800 for 2 tweeters - $9,400 total
• A DEQX HDP-4 processor/crossover with Reference Calibration Kit - $6,000
• Over-engineered cabinets for the mids & tweeters using custom-milled Corian or Zodiaq baffles (just a guess and, what the hell, let's be ridiculously generous) - $20,000

Total: $45,400.

With about the same amount of work as setting up the XLF's and 1/4 the expenditure, you have a system that is every bit as good as the Wilson XLF.

But, hey, take it from a guy who can hear the difference made by installing a $5,000 power cord to his turntable (the Fremer character who wrote the review), these speakers are worth every penny.

Why don't you try producing a cabinet like that from difficult to machine composite components. In fact why don't you build a factory, buy enormous machine tools to cut the materials (and replace the expensive bits regularly since they wear out quickly), and install a fully equipped automotive paint shop in that factory you've built. Then HIRE people and pay them GOOD WAGES, not Wal-Mart wages plus health care and 401ks.

Oh, and then consider the cost of shipping once you've assembled the speaker, don't forget to include the binding posts and complex hardware (take a look behind an XLF because clearly you haven't a CLUE) required to produce the Group Delay system that produced much of the spatial and tonal magic...etc.

And let's say you are correct: it's cost 40K as you say, but I'm sure you need to tack on at least 10K

But let's say you are correct: you clearly do NOT understand how high performance audio distribution works so let me clue you in:

If the speaker costs $40,000 to build, Wilson is entitled to make what's called a "profit".

Even a "libtard" like me believes in "profit". So if the speaker cost $40K to build, Wilson would sell it to a dealer for $80K and then the dealer has to profit too!

Considering all of this, how then do Vivid Audio manage to produce a speaker equal or greater in performance to the XLF (Giya G1), with completely bespoke, scratch-built drive units for less than half the retail price of the XLF?

I've budgeted $40,000 for speakers like the XLF. What accounts for the balance of $160,000?

Let's assume that your estimate of the XLF's parts costs is accurate. That gives a price/parts ratio of 5:1. This ratio is widely accepted as about correct for an audio manufacturer who wishes to make enough money to stay in business. The difference covers fixed overhead, salaries, interest on borrowed capital, taxes, cost of shipping and packaging (neither minor on the case of a speaker as large and heavy as this), promotional costs, and retail margin.

From http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/diy-loudspeakers

"hard-core audio enthusiasts are the harshest critics of commercially-available speakers. They second-guess designers’ and engineers’ decisions, they question why a manufacturer choose to name or price or market their product in a particular way . . . They have absolutely no understanding of the relationship between material cost and retail price. They have close to zero understanding about the practicalities or processes of manufacturing on a large scale, packaging and shipping."

So you are now quoting editorials? That's like using newspaper editorials or even Stereophile's The Open Bar forum as "proof". Did you bother to read what JohnnyR linked to and posted in the other thread?

• All of the prices I've specced are retail, not wholesale so, for all of the items listed, a significant amount of marketing and R&D has already been spent and a generous mark up has already been made by the distributors.

• I appreciate that there is a large overhead for specialty brands like this. The fact, though, that I can assemble a system largely sourced from retail brands with only one custom element (the cabinets - which would be expensive only due to them being one off's) and that system performs as well (possibly better than) the retail system four to five times it's cost leaves only one conclusion: these speakers are drastically overpriced.

• You can't build a kit car that can perform like a Bugatti Veyron. These speakers are priced like Bugatti's, but they don't offer that level of performance.

I've read the manual for the Audio Artistry CBT36 kit from Parts Express and fully understand why that kit costs $2000 while the fully assembled speaker costs $10k. Start to finish, it will take 80 to 100 man/hours to complete it.

I don't see anything so distinctive in this speakers design as to warrant its cost other than hype. I sure that it's one hell of a great speaker, but it's price is absurd.

Don't forget to amortize in the costs of running a factory in the United States, setting up assembly to be able to make product within a reasonable time frame, training employees, paying them a good wage (with health insurance!) and shipping costs on a 1910 lb/pair speaker system.

You can't run a US company on cost + 10%.

Could Wilson cut prices if they perhaps made them in China instead?

Of course, they could, but thankfully they don't.

Once again, I challenge anyone who thinks they can design a better system and sell it for less to do so - your fellow audiophiles and dealers would thank you.

Already plenty out there, the Orion and LX521by Linkwitz and the offerings from John K at Music and Design and John "Zaph" Krutke's website either sell plans or offer them free, all you have to do is either build them yourself or hire someone to do it for you.Still a lot less expensive than Wilson's ludicrous offering, plus better design and engineering. This is only a few of the many out there that also build complete systems for sale. Do your homework and look around.

I have heard many more loudspeakers than have you, probably by the HUNDREDS. In homes and stores and shows all around the country.

Your comments are IDIOTIC. That's why you are an IDIOT.

The XLFs will not be for every taste. Nor will Magicos, nor will (name your favorite brand).

BUT your comments about Wilson indicate a level of irrational hatred that seems to follow this brand because SUCCESS drives some people CRAZY. That would be you.

My favorite Wilson sleight is from people who say "Wilson is built for the 'carriage trade' not for music lovers."

Meanwhile, I travel around the world and meet accomplished professional musicians who are as enthused as I am about the sound.

It's the same nonsense I hear about vinyl: "you're not an engineer, you're not a musician" blah blah blah.

So then I meet one of the world's most acclaimed Mahler interpreters who's conducted some of the world's top orchestras and the first thing he says to me is "I'm a turntable guy."

Look George Holland, if you don't like the sound of these speakers, FINE but the suggestion that they are not well engineered is INFANTILE as is your claim that the measurements are poor. On axis frequency response taken in isolation means VERY LITTLE.

The final sound is a result of a complex interaction of events. Interpreting the complex measurements is clearly beyond your abilities since your worldview is clearly simple minded.

As I've told JRusskie in the Forums, I'll tell you as well... Dear Georgie, the way you form your arguments and present them in these discussions make for great study material in the research of logic, cognitive skills, and personality. Would make a wonderful project for an undergraduate study, since the two of you are not very complex.

If you haven't noticed, my posts are only to you and JRusskie. And they're always relevant to something...

In many respects, how you and JRusskie argue against John Atkinson and his staff at Stereophile actually confirms that they are on the right track.

1) I agree with the frequency response plot: looks ridiculous, and would expect at most a +/- 3db variation over 20Hz to 20 KHz, wishfully at most +/- 1 db, given the price.

2) I've loved the sound of the Wilson X1 in the past. Not so much the Sophia and Sasha as of late, but my tastes have changed, and so have the partnering electronics. Size wise, the Alexia is more suited to my present condo than the XLF.

3) I'd love to hear this speaker and see how it compares to the Focal Grande Utopia EM and the more recent Magico (Q7).

As professional loudspeaker engeneer for 30 years I would like to give my compliments to Mr Atkinson for his ever realistic quotes about the measurements;we use same equipment and I measured same speakers with same measurement results in past.The discussion i red above here is more emo-/phsycological than about real facts.200k is lot of money;and blind-staring at frequency-responses within 0,5dB is like drilling to water on the moon.

As every commercial product,at any price,the direct costs are about 1/8 from retail price.We all buy that,every day.I know a car is about 1/10th direct cost;and we all by cars (stil).

So wake up,dont focus on direct costs,imagine-or try to-how many hours of development for a new design like this?Some high-end speaker (direct information)manufacturers spend one year with 30 people à 150/h to design a new speaker.Take your calculator now.I measured on many Wilson products and to my opinion its real well build,units are modified very clever;that's the "x-factor" say the magic why some speakers sound so very good.Wilson excells in this.Btw i have no business-relation with Wilson.

I never read DIY fora,gives me bad stomach of nitwit people 99% of the time;everybody with bucks can buy a scanspeak or accuton;and think they can do it better.So,if than,elevate a company and sell your speakers worldwide! What a real good design is,is not that flat freq curve,not that ripple-free imp curve or symmetric cross-over curve,but the sum of 100 other parameters;and thats a very intensive and intelligent process,besides of taste etc.

Better talk about design philosofics;aiming the goal;relation between measurements and what you hear.thats the clue.Thank you.

i know that , but the frequeney response is a part of the sound quality, bad frequency responce make bad speaker, the sound is better when the fréquency response is flatter, and a ripple in the imp curve in usable fréquency response is for below average driver

wilson audio have make a bas speaker for the price, adam in deuchland have really good engeenering speaker, very clever design, excellent tweeter, when they see this design they probably laught

for a fraction of this price i can buy an adam audio s7a mk2, whith good implémentation this speaker have not the bad mesuring and the sound of the wilson audio, it is better, they know how utilise good driver, the high-medium air motion transformer is an exceptionnal driver

the only problèm is the size and the basic black finish but good finish

this technologie if it corectly use, is beter than any dôme, except the french acoustical beauty driver whith no iron in the and a ferrofluid join in the motor

I see Stereophile likes to delete honest answers but allows really vile posts to stay on here when it benifits them.

I have now posted several warnings in various threads that I will delete without notice comments that are nothing more than flames, in my opinion. If a comment, while being strongly worded, expresses a sentiment that I feel deserves to see the light of day, whether pro- or con-Stereophile, I leave it up, though I may well delete some of the content if it consists of flames.

I try to be consistent, but if you have a problem with our moderation of this site, then there is nothing that compels you to post to it, GeorgeHolland.

I registered here just to say this. This was my first time on the Stereophile website and this was the first review I read. In reading the comments I was quite surprised when I realized the guy who was making some of the worst, most flaming comments was the guy who wrote the review himself.

If your policy is to delete posts that consist of nothing more than flames or to delete that content from those posts, I think you need to do some serious work on Michael Fremer's own comments. What is a flame if not "Your iggnorance is only matched by your spellllling," period; no further content? His remarks are extremely unprofessional, discourteous, knee-jerk, insulting, and I would say go beyond anything said about him by a wide margin (unless something considerably nastier than what remains was removed earlier). I'm surprised there is no policy in place that staff should be above whatever chaos occurs in the comments and should always maintain some manner of decorum when participating. Frankly, in many, if not the vast majority of, professions, his behavior would be worthy of serious reprimand/firing.

Im just her to say that I used to read stereophile, found the magazine completely snobby, and useless to real people, and i completely agree with nothing to say. I also feel that mikey boy needs to calm down and actually have a conversation rather than simple berate others that do not share his opinion. I don't exactly agree with george either. But if I were editor, mike would be in the unemployment line. I believe he is being overly defensive because he knows he wasted $200k on speakers that could never be worth that much.. Good luck trying to get your money back. But I'm sure mike will just call me names as well... Not that anything he says has any meaning.

@Mr GH;so,if you are in the biss of the DIY-what i read between the lines-,or maybe feel connected;than,i can understand you feel not OK by my text about my quote that 99% of the DIY designers are nitwitts.I dont talk to- or point in direction to people who buy a DIY-kit.I aim on the people (pfff...see my text before) who buy expensive drive-units and think they can copy (what is illegal by law;is "intellectual property"-issue) a renowned/famous/expensive design or think that they can even make it better.Almost zero chance-seen that.Besides,what i told in my previous post,is related to 30 years of experience in the speakerworld.Been there done that.Ego is biggest ennemy of forward thinking and end-result;so i stepped on it?Sorry for you.As you are probably or maybe an inmortatant player in the DIY industry you feel not OK with my pure personal conclusions.Reality hurts,sometimes.Thats life.I dont even give a blink about your megalomane quote about banning.And;whats your "affiliation"??Or are you the God of speaker-industry who thinks he is above all?see header.

@Billyjul;thank you for your kind and fair reply;I am familiar with these AMT's-say Air Motion Transformers-i measured them on a reference baffle (IEC) as we do with every drive-unit; and my conclusions are same as yours;the only minus is a trade off in the horizontal beaming,since the width of the membrane is quite wide the beaming starts at relatively low frequency;(343/width membrane in meters-than divede to 2 is average frequency start beaming)so,in practice,the horizontal spational-amplitude response is worth considering.Nothing is perfect.Tune the filtering to flat response on 15dgrees to 10Khz..Distortion is about 0,05%measured at 95dB;not cheap drivers but for real high-end systems one of the best solutions.

Mike among the companies I worked for as a rep where Mc Intosh, Dynaco, Hafler, and Hafler Pro, Sherwood,Rockford Fosgate Jim Fosgate,AR, NHT, ADS, NAD, PSB, Ixos, and Esoteric Audio. I also worked as a Buyer for 8 years,and did two of the LA Stereophile shows. SO you give me a break. I have heard many Wilson speakers(Not this one) and I'm not impresed by them. I have never judged a audio product without a listen.If you had read my post I was defending Micky's choice to by the Wilsons. I just said they don't do anything for me as a audiophile.

I ask this simply because I'd never heard anything I liked from earlier Wilsons, including generation of W/Ps and the Maxx 2s, and even some newer models like the Sophia 3, but to me the Sasha and Alexia have been truly special sonically, finally not suffering from the "cones in a box" disease of most dynamic designs.

if you use corectly a driver, you can't go wrong, on internet there a quantity of utilitise to simulate parametters, listenig for learn how make a speaker

but construct a driver is far difficult, it is a crutial point, a good speaker bigin whith good drivers, and goods drivers choice to have a good intégration

whith a good reflexion you can make not a good, but a very good speaker in 2voice, a three voice is more complicate

i think,

"David Wilson, amateur! That guy just throws a few drivers in a box and wants 200 grand. I could do better than that"

yes, i agree his speaker have problem, the integration of the drivers, in the cabinet and the design of this are the problem i think

an exemple, the focal berylium tweeter have to be flush mounted on the cabinet, is you don't do this , the response curve is awfull, not flat, flush mounted it is excellent, and the sound is realy better

whtih air motion transformer you can do to directive driver, i think one of the best design is the adam adio x-ART but the model whith the most powerfull magnet, for the high-end speaker

and they have an high medium whitch is a very interesting driver, he goes lower than most other, and they are no to long and vertical directive

As I said at the beginning of this section, there are practical limitations when measuring so large a loudspeaker. While I am confident that my measurements regime fully characterizes the performance of a small speaker (such as KEF's LS50, which I reviewed last month), with a speaker as large as Wilson's Alexandria XLF, the measurements offer suggestions rather than certainties.

I'm not sure I understand what the implication is here - because it would seem that, by this statement, you could be confident in the response of the speaker above a certain frequency (let's say somewhere above the high pass moving from the bass drivers to the mid/tweet module) - and that those measurements, per the assumptions you derive from your methods ordinarily, would be more of the "certainty" variety and less of the "suggestion" variety.

Would you say that you are cnfident in the response of the speaker above ca: 150Hz?

I tend to stay away from the comment section following reviews, mine and those of other reviewers, and this thread is a good reason why.

The arrogance, stupidity and ignorance is simply appalling and depressing.

I have had many of the world's greatest speakers in my room and I've heard others in other settings: homes, stores and shows around the world.

There are MANY different sounds that are valid and designed for different tastes. The inability of some here to understand that, not to mention understanding how to interpret measurements, is just plain pathetic.

Were I to be led around by measurements, all of which are CRUDE compared to the ear/brain, I'd be listening to CDs...

Despite a slightly heavier moving mass, but thanks to a more powerful motor, bass from 2242 are much tighter offering better transient response and allowing more freedom in upper frequency cut off while bass through 2241 are more of the rolling type.

Similarly one can compare the same parameters in JBL pro offering versus the Focal drivers used in the Wilson family design:

Clearly, with a low BL and heavy moving mass, the Focal drivers exhibit quite a low output for such large drivers - a serious problem when trying to recreate live dynamics-, and won't physically deliver faster transients than their JBL pro counterparts, that is clean, lean bass. Other factors such as cone rigidity might help compensate but from the start, I would expect the Focal sound to be plump. Conversely, the 2226 won't go as deep as the Audiom 15, yet its bass will be tighter, punchier. My recent audition of the Focal Grand Utopia confirmed that feeling versus the quickness and tone of the JBL. And here we keep the comparison to bass/upper bass, as cone midranges versus compression would add another level of challenge for the expensive speaker as it did with the Utopia.

So the Wilsons or Focal are of course beautifully crafted, well designed speakers destined to plush interiors and lovers of a certain kind of sound, just as Cadillacs can deliver a certain style of ride. Fine. Yet at $200,000 there is plenty of space for DIY audiophiles to challenge them at more reasonable costs, especially when using active networking designs. Notwithstanding the choice of pro monitoring speakers that are much more affordable than these luxury items. Therefore, some DYI can proudly defend the quality of their bespoke work; however, others could tone down their arguments of authority, checkbook arrogance and quick tongue.

I have no doubt that a good DIYer could build a speaker with better frequency response, but I'd still like to see the plots and hear what a reviewer had to say about the sound (I've heard any number of components with impeccable response graphs but that sounded simply horrible.)

That of course ignores what price you'd have to sell it for to afford a full-blown factory with staff to produce it in the US, but let's just start with that.

There are any number of "hot rodders" who can build a Porsche-beater for less than the price of a new 911, but they too tend to be one-offs rather than something you can walk into a showroom and purchase.

Check the price differential between some Watt/Puppy and a 4348 JBL pro studio monitor and compare the sound... Your answer is there. At the price of this professional gear, even DIY are almost getting not economical.

plat frequency response for a driver used in a speaker is just the beginning, but with active crossover witch contain an equalizer, you can correct the response of a speaker, to make better, butt, good driver hame flat frequency response there are other parameters, you have to look, when you make a speaker, parameters, that most audiophile , don't know and a speaker tha measure good on overall parameter can't be a bad speaker, it is not the case for this wilson audio and the jbl mansionned is better than this for much lower price, beaucause jbl know what to do and have developed all the excellent driver to achieve their desgn

WOW, what a load of TROLL CRAP here.....some people here need to get a life and if you hate Wilson so, then get the hell out of here....you will NOT convince one person with the anti-Wilson spew.....I agree with others....build us your own XLF and prove that Wilson is building garbage or perpetrating a fraud....

When your fabulous speaker is built, let me know so I can buy your wonderful effort and save myself tens of thousands....

To some of you.....quit feeding the idiotic trolls who shit all over these and other forums....i guess that these trolls were run out of the asylums for audio elsewhere...

By the way, for you Wilson haters....I am planing an ultra high end system for late this year...the XLF's are on the list...for the turd here who claims to be able to build an XLF for way less, let me know and I will add it to MY list....hehehehehe...and I bet it will sound oh so sexy.....

Perhaps it would be enlightening for some here to consider the genuine economics of this situation.

Mr. Fremer did not pay $200,000 for his XLFs, whatever their cost of construction or subjective worth. In fact, it is very likely that he received a discount considerably greater than Wilson’s 40-45% retail margin.

Considering the dealer cost, it is likely that Mr. Fremer paid less than $100,000 for his pair.

Add a payment plan directly financed by Wilson Audio and a future resale value greater than the accommodation price and the picture of Mr. Fremer’s purchase snaps into focus with remarkable clarity.

Is your obtuseness. Guess what? I can buy just about any loudspeaker known to man at an accommodation price. In fact, were I like some reviewers I could get a "long term loan" for just about any speaker known to man and just have them here for as long as I like.

However your libelous comment that there was a "payment plan directly financed by Wilson Audio" is where I tell you with no due respect to go f...k yourself.

I would not pay too much attention to the speakers frequency response.
It is a very large speaker, and FR is always measured on the tweeter axis.
Low frequency measurements in smaller rooms are also questionable.
What I do find interesting is the speakers time domain behavior.
This is not very good, and I cannot imagine, that this will not ad a lot of collouration to the sound of this speaker.
It simply emits sound long time after the input signal has stopped.
In my experience this will mask the sound in a way, so that a lot of low level signal is lost.
Also the impedance of this speaker would make me worry.
Anyways I do not think this is a speaker for life, I´d believe that one would get fed up with this "Sound Of Its Own" as time goes by.

If one would like to see a clean time domain behavior, then look at the newly tested Dali Rubicon, that´s how things should behave
, if you want transparancy.

I have to say I agree with SNI. I believe that Richard Vandersteen himself once said that he thought that speaker designs with drive units out of phase with each other such as this one are a compromised design. Many great preamplifier designers incorporate phase controls to invert phase in case a recording was made out of phase (it happens more often than you think). The result of inverting phase on an out of phase recording is more solid bass and I believe more coherent imaging... Basic tenets of major speaker designers like Jim Thiel, Richard Vandersteen, and John Dunlavy among others, Well, if your drivers aren't even in phase with each other, how can you possibly hope to reproduce a phase coherent signal? The answer is: you can't. And I would never pay two grand-- let alone two hundred grand-- for a speaker that can't even perform that basic feat. I know that there is debate about the audibility of phase coherence, but that is a LONG debate topic for another time. Please take this constructive criticism with class, because I have owned Thiel speakers over the years and I believe that I can hear the difference.

What everybody seems to be missing here is not the frequency response, but the fact that the midrange units are in inverted polarity to the other drive units. This makes it impossible for this speaker to be phase and time coherent. I believe that Richard Vandersteen was quoted as saying that "putting drivers out of polarity in a loudspeaker is something you do in a cheap speaker, not in a high-end speaker".http://www.soundstage.com/interviews/int07.htm

So what does Michael Fremer have to say about that? Is this where he tells us he knows more about loudspeaker design than Richard Vandersteen??